DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science LlNNAHAN GKNKKA 8M THE TYPES OF LINNAEAN GENERA J. A. Nieuwland, Notre Dame There seems to be a rather general belief among botanists (and zoologists too) that Linnaeus nowhere did anything to indicate the type species of his genera. In fact, on occasion, I have heard botanists give expression to the statement that the concept of a Linnaean genus was not meant by him to be limited in any way by types as now under- stood, but that the word genus as he viewed it, included equally all species included under the name without any emphasis whatever to be put on the concept to single out a single species as a type species of that genus in the modern view. Whatever may or may not have been the Linnaean ideas, nothing is more certain however, than the fact that Linnaeus not only expected that future botanists with possibly different ideas of the term genus, might, and probably would, divide his groups differently than he had done. He even went so far as to formulate rules for this 'process of segregation, not arbitrarily made as do the botanical congresses of today, but based on sound reason and good judgment. I go so far as to assert that were the Linnaean stand- ards observed, we should not need botanical congresses at all. These latter are too often swayed by motives of feasibility and fail to meet a problem face to face on a logical basis. For the reason that such remarkable works as the "Critica Botan- ica" and the "Philosophia Botanica" contain no publication of new genera and species, botanists generally know nothing about them, or if they do, prefer to ignore them. In these works the great 18th century taxonomist gives all the reasons for his methods and at the same time explains the principles and laws of nomenclature and tax- onomy, and that too, in a more comprehensive and logical way than the makeshift methods of our modern scientific nomenclatorial con- gresses. Let me, at the outset, state that inasmuch as we live in an age of democracy, or I think it were better to say an age of voting, there seems to have arisen the idea that truth can be settled by ballot taxo- nomically, or, for that matter, politically. Of course, it is obvious that there is nothing more dogmatic than a truth or a principle, and yet, throwing facts and principles aside, congresses, since they have started, have tried to agree on things by the force and number of ballots although it is absolutely useless to do so unless the matter voted on is true, logical, a fact, or a principle. Moreover, if anything is a truth, a principle, a fact, and logically reasoned out, then no number of votes or ballots can make it untruth, illogical, or a guess. How often has a man with a truth stood against the world of ballots and opinions and won? I have said and repeated times without number that nomen- clatorial problems will never be solved by legislation and votes. Logic "Proc. Ind. Acad. ScL, vol. 42, 1932 (1933)." : 84 Proceedings of Indiana Academy of Science and reason alone will prevail in the long run, and the more nomen- clatorial congresses we have, the more involved become the difficulties, the further off seems the solution of them. Linnaeus, the opinion of many modern taxonomists to the contrary notwithstanding, left rules for the segregation of his own genera, and by implication, also indicated what we may call a way of determining his types. On page 197 of his "Philosophia Botanica" (1751) (or page 197 of the second edition of 1755 of the same work), he says: "246. Si Genus receptum, secundum jus naturae (162) et artis (164), in plura dirimi debet, turn nomen antea commune manebit vul- gatissimae et officinali plantae. CORNI genus supponatur dividi in tria: A. Arbor floribus involucratis umbellatis. B. Herba floribus involucratis umbellatis. C. Arbor floribus non involucratis cymosis. Sic dicenda A. Cor?? us, B. Mesomora, C. Ossea, nee licet A dici Mesomoram aut Osseam,'" Linnaeus' genus A is therefore clearly to be retained as Cornus, that is, as typified by Cornus mas which, by the way, was regarded as the typical Cornus since the time of Pliny and by all the writers to the time of Linnaeus, or most of those after, for that matter. Mesomora Rudbeck has C. canadensis as type and has another spe- cies C. Suecica. Ossea Rudbeck, contains the cymose flowering dogwoods contain- ing the group with largest number of species, now called Svida, having most of our American shrubs. The type is C. sanguined L. In Rhodora, volume 34, page 29 (1932), Mr. Oliver Farwell dis- cusses certain generic segregates or supposed generic segregates of 1 Rafinesque . As briefly as I can state the situation, Farwell says that certain segregated genera of Rafinesque have no valid standing. There seems, perhaps, a chance that the context and type of print, order, etc., might lend force to quite a different conclusion, Farwell to the contrary not- withstanding. Had Farwell made a photostatic print in Rhodora of the original of pages 58 and 59 of that work, perhaps the matter might look otherwise especially to such readers as are habituated by long study to Rafinesque's rather suggestive ways of proposing new genera. This may, however, well be a matter of opinion, and I am not here concerned with the question whether anyone may or may not consider Rafinesque's "groups" genera. Moreover, the name Mesomora, for example, has been badly misinterpreted by Rafinesque and he himself has made some rather unfortunate mistakes in grouping the species in the reference quoted by Farwell. On page 30, Rhodora, Farwell, referring to Rafinesque, makes the following interesting statement "Under the international rules, the name Eukrania must be re- Rafinesque. Alnographia Americana, pp. 58-66 (1838). Linnaean Genera 85 tained for the group having the largest number of species, hence I choose Cornus canadensis Linn, as its type." To select arbitrarily a type of a Linnaean genus, where that author has already done so, leads to taxonomic anarchy. Rafinesque combines the bracted cornels, namely the tree Cornus mas (C. mascula Raf.) with the two herbaceous cornels C. canadensis and C. suecica. These three are the only species in A "group". If Farwell is selecting C. canadensis as the type of the Linnaean aggregate genus Cornus, he is presumptive, because Linnaeus himself picked his own type C. mas. as I shall show presently. If Farwell means, in spite of his own statements to the contrary, that he selects C. canadensis as the type of the group Eukrania containing C. canadensis, C. mas and C. suecica, it still will not do, because Eukrania does not have precedence over Chamaejiericlymenum, the latter having been proposed by Hill in 1756. I called attention to this as early as 1909, and Farwell might have found this in his own library with only a few minutes search, although the Kew Index, as sometimes happens, did not take cognizance of the report. We may sum up the question in the following manner. Linnaeus had five species in the 1st edition of the Species Plantarum of 1753. C. mas, is the Cornus of Pliny, Columbella, Vergil, and the other authors before him, and therefore the type of his genus. C. sanguinea is the type of Ossea Rivinus (or, as we call it now, Sanda) . C. canaden- sis and C. seucica are in Mesomora now called Chamaepericlymenum. J. Hill (1756) British Herba, p. 331. C. florida L. had not been segre- gated before Linnaeus, but was associated with C. mas. We here ap- pend Linnaeus' further discussion in the "Philosophia Botanica": "Sic dicenda A. Cornus B. Mesomora C. Ossea. nee licet A dici Mesomoram aut Osseam." Linnaeus' genus A. is therefore clearly to be retained as Cornus, that is, as typified by Cornus mas which, by the way, was regarded as the typical cornus since the time of Pliny and by all the writers to the time of Linnaeus, or after, for that matter. Mesomora Rudbeck has C. canadensis as type, and has another species, C. suecica. Ossea Rudbeck contains the symose flowering dog- woods, containing the group with largest number of species. Even more convincing and explicit is the rule that Linnaeus proposed in the "Critica Botanica". I quote the passage in full because of its importance to the matter under discussion. The meaning is obvious. "246. Si genus receptum Secundum jus naturae et artis, in plura dirimi debet, turn nomen antea commune manebit vulgatissimae et officinali plantae. Varia nomina plantis imposuere veteres, rarius observantes genera. Systematici nullo habito respectu ad veterum divisiones, quae fructifi- catione convenerunt, ad idem genus idemque nomen commune reduxerunt; reliqua omnia nomina ejecerunt. Cum haec reductio, secundum assumta principia systematica artificialia, saepe erronea evaserit, diviserunt iterum haec genera recentissimi Systematici secundum principia naturalia in plura, tumque revocata fuere prius expulsa nomina: quae, si aliis, quam olim, nunc connectierentur plantis, inextricabilis inde oriretur con- fusio. Exemplis res clarior evadet. *6 Proceedings of Indiana Academy of Science Comas, Ossea, Mesomora genere conjungi debent, adeoque excludi duo nomina, tertium persistere: non licet ex hisce tribus, si per se bona sint nomina omnia, quodcunque horum placeat, indifferente assumere; sed necessario vulgatissimum, antiquissimum, et officinale nomen; ergo nee Ossea, nee Mesomora sed Cornus retineri debet. Hisce positis; ur- geat Ruppius ex authoritate Rivini, quod Ossea sit distinctum genus; Rudbeckius, quod Mesomora, cum herba sit, reliquae arbores; positis (non concessis) hisce, non licet vocare Mesomoram Osseam, vel vice versa, sed debet fingula retinere nomen quod antea gessit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biology 302-Systematic Botany
    Biology 302 – Field Systematic Botany “Nomina si nescis, perit et cognitio rerum” (If you do not know the names of things, the knowledge of them is useless) Summer II 2013 Linneaus Critica Botanica 1737 Instructor Dr. Ross A. McCauley Office: 447 Berndt Hall Office phone: 970-247-7338 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/mccauley_r/index.html Office hours: MWR 10:00 am-12:10 pm and by appointment Course information Meeting time and place: Lecture/Lab MWR 8:00–10: 00 am, Berndt 440; Field T 8:00 am – 4:30 pm. The lab and herbarium will be open and available for independent work until at least noon on all class days. Required texts: Judd, W. S., C. S. Campbell, E. A. Kellogg, P. F. Stevens and M. J. Donoghue. 2008. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach, 3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. ISBN: 978-0-87893-407-2 Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Western Slope, 4th edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. ISBN: 978-1-60732-142-2 Harris, J. G. and M. W. Harris. 2001. Plant Identification Terminology, 2nd edition, Spring Lake Publishing, Spring Lake, UT. ISBN: 978-0-96402-216-4 Required Supplies (available at FLC bookstore – probably not shelved with textbooks – ask clerk for assistance) 10x handlens 1 Rite-in-the-Rain, Horizontal Line All-Weather Notebook, No. 391 Course Website: http://moodle.fortlewis.edu I will use Moodle as a repository for any lecture material and plant lists. Most of these will also be made available in class.
    [Show full text]
  • The Species Problem
    Ethnobotanical Leaflets Journal Contents Back Issues Book Reviews Research Notes Careers Meetings Botany Resources The Species Problem Selected Definitions (Presented in Chronological Order) Compiled by Donald Ugent 3/28/96 John Ray. 1704. "Nulla certior occurit quam distincta propagations ex semine.'' (Nothing is more certain to distinguish species than the criterion that true species faithfully reproduce their kind by seed.) "Plants which derive their origin from the same seed, and again propagate themselves in sowing, we may consider as belonging to a single species...Thus as to plants of specific conformity: there is certainty that they came from the seed of the same plant, whether as species or individual. For those which differ as species preserve their species in perpetuity, and one does not arise from the seed of the other, or vice versa." (Historia Plantarum. Chapt XXI). Linnaeus, C. 1731. "All species number their origin first from the hand of the Omnipotent Creator: for species having been created, the Author of Nature has imposed the eternal law of generation and multiplication within the species itself...there is never a metamorphosis from one species into another." (Critica Botanica Sect. 271). "There are as many species as there were originally created diverse forms." (Classes Plantarum 1738). "That species of plants were created by God at the beginning of the world and do not change into other species, and are therefore natural, and that they remain unchanged to the present day no sane person will doubt; the confusion which would arise from the change of one species into another, to the detriment of mankind, would not be allowed by the most provident Maker." (Ortega's 1792 edition of Linneaus, Philosophia Botanica.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Imperialism'
    Title Linnaeus, Chinese flora and 'linguistic imperialism' Author(s) Cook, GA The 2009 Symposium of the University of Hong Kong Summer Institute in Arts & Humanities: 'The Appropriation of Chinese Citation Nature during the Enlightenment', Hong Kong, China, 14 July 2009. Issued Date 2009 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/123694 Rights Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License Linnaeus, Chinese flora and ‘linguistic imperialism’ Alexandra Cook Department of Philosophy HKU [email protected] Theses Linnaeus did not practice „linguistic imperialism‟ in naming Chinese plants; In naming Chinese plants, Linnaeus applied his rules less restrictively than is generally thought (Needham, Schiebinger); assigned a relatively small percentage of patronymic names; and offered a road map to many indigenous usages and names through his synonymies and materia medica. Some statistics 160 Chinese species determined by Linnaeus father and son; 100 of these in Species plantarum (1753): SP marks official beginning of modern botanical nomenclature Binomial names: Genus + specific epithet Total of 319 Chinese species known to L. and L. fil. Total genera named by Linnaeus: 1,313 23% of 286 economically-useful species named by Linnaeus have generic names referring to use contradicting his rules of 1737 (Crit. Bot.) Patronymics: 10% (i.e. 13) of 131 genera designations of Chinese plants by L. and L. fil. However, mine is primarily a qualitative, rather than a quantitative or statistical, argument. Critiques of Linnaean generic names Joseph Needham, with Lu Gwei-Djen and Huang Hsin-Tsung, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. 6: Biology and Biological Technology, part I: Botany (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Botanical Nomenclature
    Taxonomy Prof.(Dr.) Punam Jeswal Head M.Sc semester II Botany Department Rules of Botanical Nomenclature Definition - Nomenclature is the art of naming of objects, which deals with the determination of a correct name to a known plant or to a known taxon. The names indeed correspond to the sentence, as both constitute meaningful collection of words. A name indicates a noun that helps in the quick identification, easy communication and economy of memory about the object to which it is concerned. Types of Names - The names according to their range of audience, language, territorial coverage and governance are of two types :- 1. Common or vernacular names. 2. International or scientific names. Common or Vernacular Names - These names are of the locals, by the locals, for the locals, in the local dialect. That is when a local plant is named by native people for the identification and communication to the other people of the same territory in their won local dialect, it is referred to as local or common or vernacular name. The fundamental demerits of this name are that they have limited audience, small territorial coverage and not governed under any set of principles or rules and even the same plant may have more than one name in the same locality. Another demerit of concern regarding these names is presence of synonyms in the languages therefore; the same plant may have a variety of names at different places in different languages. As for instance, mango(Mangifera indica) posses more than fifty names in Sanskrit only and lotus is known by more than two dozen names in Sanskrit and Hindi languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Cain on Linnaeus: the Scientist-Historian As Unanalysed Entity
    Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci., Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 239–254, 2001 Pergamon 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 1369-8486/01 $ - see front matter www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc Cain on Linnaeus: The Scientist-Historian as Unanalysed Entity Mary P. Winsor* Zoologist A. J. Cain began historical research on Linnaeus in 1956 in connection with his dissatisfaction over the standard taxonomic hierarchy and the rules of binomial nomenclature. His famous 1958 paper ‘Logic and Memory in Linnaeus’s System of Taxonomy’ argues that Linnaeus was following Aristotle’s method of logical division without appreciating that it properly applies only to ‘analysed entities’ such as geo- metric figures whose essential nature is already fully known. The essence of living things being unanalysed, there is no basis on which to choose the right characters to define a genus nor on which to differentiate species. Yet Cain’s understanding of Aristotle, which depended on a 1916 text by H. W. B. Joseph, was fatally flawed. In the 1990s Cain devoted himself to further historical study and softened his verdict on Linnaeus, praising his empiricism. The idea that Linnaeus was applying an ancient and inappropriate method cries out for fresh study and revision. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: A. J. Cain; Linnaeus; Aristotle; Essentialism; Systematics; Logic. The category to which the following belongs is not the history of systematics but the history of the history of systematics. I have just one small tale to tell, but I suspect there are similar tales scattered about unnoticed in the history of other sciences, and it seems to me they are worth uncovering.
    [Show full text]
  • Suppressing Synonymy with a Homonym: the Emergence of the Nomenclatural Type Concept in Nineteenth Century Natural History
    Journal of the History of Biology (2016) 49:135–189 Ó The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com 2015 DOI 10.1007/s10739-015-9410-y Suppressing Synonymy with a Homonym: The Emergence of the Nomenclatural Type Concept in Nineteenth Century Natural History JOERI WITTEVEEN Descartes Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands Department of Psychology Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands Abstract. ‘Type’ in biology is a polysemous term. In a landmark article, Paul Farber (Journal of the History of Biology 9(1): 93–119, 1976) argued that this deceptively plain term had acquired three different meanings in early nineteenth century natural history alone. ‘Type’ was used in relation to three distinct type concepts, each of them associated with a different set of practices. Important as Farber’s analysis has been for the historiography of natural history, his account conceals an important dimension of early nineteenth century ‘type talk.’ Farber’s taxonomy of type concepts passes over the fact that certain uses of ‘type’ began to take on a new meaning in this period. At the closing of the eighteenth century, terms like ‘type specimen,’ ‘type species,’ and ‘type genus’ were universally recognized as referring to typical, model members of their encom- passing taxa. But in the course of the nineteenth century, the same terms were co-opted for a different purpose. As part of an effort to drive out nomenclatural synonymy – the confusing state of a taxon being known to different people by different names – these terms started to signify the fixed and potentially atypical name-bearing elements of taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • Flies and Flowers Ii: Floral Attractants and Rewards
    Journal of Pollination Ecology, 12(8), 2014, pp 63-94 FLIES AND FLOWERS II: FLORAL ATTRACTANTS AND REWARDS Thomas S Woodcock 1*, Brendon M H Larson 2, Peter G Kevan 1, David W Inouye 3 & Klaus Lunau 4 1School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1. 2Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1. 3Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA, 20742. 4Institute of Sensory Ecology, Biology Department, Heinrich-Heine University, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. Abstract —This paper comprises Part II of a review of flower visitation and pollination by Diptera (myiophily or myophily). While Part I examined taxonomic diversity of anthophilous flies, here we consider the rewards and attractants used by flowers to procure visits by flies, and their importance in the lives of flies. Food rewards such as pollen and nectar are the primary reasons for flower visits, but there is also a diversity of non-nutritive rewards such as brood sites, shelter, and places of congregation. Floral attractants are the visual and chemical cues used by Diptera to locate flowers and the rewards that they offer, and we show how they act to increase the probability of floral visitation. Lastly, we discuss the various ways in which flowers manipulate the behaviour of flies, deceiving them to visit flowers that do not provide the advertised reward, and how some flies illegitimately remove floral rewards without causing pollination. Our review demonstrates that myiophily is a syndrome corresponding to elements of anatomical, behavioural and physiological adaptations of flower-visiting Diptera.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblioqraphy & Natural History
    BIBLIOQRAPHY & NATURAL HISTORY Essays presented at a Conference convened in June 1964 by Thomas R. Buckman Lawrence, Kansas 1966 University of Kansas Libraries University of Kansas Publications Library Series, 27 Copyright 1966 by the University of Kansas Libraries Library of Congress Catalog Card number: 66-64215 Printed in Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A., by the University of Kansas Printing Service. Introduction The purpose of this group of essays and formal papers is to focus attention on some aspects of bibliography in the service of natural history, and possibly to stimulate further studies which may be of mutual usefulness to biologists and historians of science, and also to librarians and museum curators. Bibli• ography is interpreted rather broadly to include botanical illustration. Further, the intent and style of the contributions reflects the occasion—a meeting of bookmen, scientists and scholars assembled not only to discuss specific examples of the uses of books and manuscripts in the natural sciences, but also to consider some other related matters in a spirit of wit and congeniality. Thus we hope in this volume, as in the conference itself, both to inform and to please. When Edwin Wolf, 2nd, Librarian of the Library Company of Phila• delphia, and then Chairman of the Rare Books Section of the Association of College and Research Libraries, asked me to plan the Section's program for its session in Lawrence, June 25-27, 1964, we agreed immediately on a theme. With few exceptions, we noted, the bibliography of natural history has received little attention in this country, and yet it is indispensable to many biologists and to historians of the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Found in the Middle Parts of the State Grow Here, Excepting the Alpine Flowers
    CULTIVATION BOTANY.— Wood grows here [Concord] with great rapidity; and it is supposed there is as much now as there was twenty years ago. Walden woods at the south, and other lots towards the southwest parts of the town, are the most extensive, covering several hundred acres of light-soil land. Much of the fuel, which is consumed, is, however brought from the neighbouring towns. The most common trees are the oak, pine, maple, elm, white birch, chestnut, walnut, &c., &c. Hemlock and spruce are very rare. The ornamental trees transplanted, in this as in most other towns, do not appear to have been placed with much regularity; but as they are, they contribute much to the comfort and beauty of the town. The elm, buttonwood, horse-chestnut, and fruit trees have very properly taken the place of sickly poplars, in ornamenting the dwellings. The large elm in front of the court-house, –the pride of the common,– is almost unrivalled in beauty. It is about “three score and ten,” but is still growing with youthful vigor and uniform rapidity. Dr. Jarvis, who is familiar with the botany of Concord, informs me, that “most of the plants found in the middle parts of the state grow here, excepting the alpine flowers. The extensive low lands produce abundantly the natural families of the aroideæ, typhæ, cyperoideæ, gramineæ, junci, corymbiferæ and unbelliferæ. These genera especially abound. There are also found, the juncus militaris (bayonet rush), on the borders of Fairhaven pond; cornus florida; lobelia carinalis (cardinal flower) abundant on the borders of the river; polygala cruciata, in the east parts of the town; nyssa villosa (swamp hornbeam) at the foot of Fairhaven hill.” The cicuta Americana (hemlock) grows abundant on the intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Taxonomy
    History of Taxonomy The history of taxonomy dates back to the origin of human language. Western scientific taxonomy started in Greek some hundred years BC and are here divided into prelinnaean and postlinnaean. The most important works are cited and the progress of taxonomy (with the focus on botanical taxonomy) are described up to the era of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who founded modern taxonomy. The development after Linnaeus is characterized by a taxonomy that increasingly have come to reflect the paradigm of evolution. The used characters have extended from morphological to molecular. Nomenclatural rules have developed strongly during the 19th and 20th century, and during the last decade traditional nomenclature has been challenged by advocates of the Phylocode. Mariette Manktelow Dept of Systematic Biology Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Norbyv. 18D SE-752 36 Uppsala E-mail: [email protected] 1. Pre-Linnaean taxonomy 1.1. Earliest taxonomy Taxonomy is as old as the language skill of mankind. It has always been essential to know the names of edible as well as poisonous plants in order to communicate acquired experiences to other members of the family and the tribe. Since my profession is that of a systematic botanist, I will focus my lecture on botanical taxonomy. A taxonomist should be aware of that apart from scientific taxonomy there is and has always been folk taxonomy, which is of great importance in, for example, ethnobiological studies. When we speak about ancient taxonomy we usually mean the history in the Western world, starting with Romans and Greek. However, the earliest traces are not from the West, but from the East.
    [Show full text]
  • Lamarck: the Birth of Biology Author(S): Frans A
    Lamarck: The Birth of Biology Author(s): Frans A. Stafleu Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1971), pp. 397-442 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1218244 . Accessed: 24/12/2012 16:29 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:29:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TAXON 20(4): 397-442. AUGUST 1971 LAMARCK:THE BIRTH OF BIOLOGY Frans A. Stafleu "A long blind patience, such was his genius of the Universe" (Sainte Beuve) Summary A review of the development of Lamarck'sideas on biological systematibswith special reference to the origin and development of his concept of organic evolution. Lamarck's development towards biological systematics is traced through his early botanical and geological writings and related to the gradual change in his scientific outlook from a static and essentialist view of nature towards a dynamic and positivist concept of the life sciences as a special discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tachinid Times
    The Tachinid Times ISSUE 24 February 2011 Jim O’Hara, editor Invertebrate Biodiversity Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada ISSN 1925-3435 (Print) C.E.F., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6 ISSN 1925-3443 (Online) Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] My thanks to all who have contributed to this year’s announcement before the end of January 2012. This news- issue of The Tachinid Times. This is the largest issue of the letter accepts submissions on all aspects of tachinid biology newsletter since it began in 1988, so there still seems to be and systematics, but please keep in mind that this is not a a place between peer-reviewed journals and Internet blogs peer-reviewed journal and is mainly intended for shorter for a medium of this sort. This year’s issue has a diverse news items that are of special interest to persons involved assortment of articles, a few announcements, a listing of in tachinid research. Student submissions are particularly recent literature, and a mailing list of subscribers. The welcome, especially abstracts of theses and accounts of Announcements section is more sizable this year than usual studies in progress or about to begin. I encourage authors and I would like to encourage readers to contribute to this to illustrate their articles with colour images, since these section in the future. This year it reproduces the abstracts add to the visual appeal of the newsletter and are easily of two recent theses (one a Ph.D. and the other a M.Sc.), incorporated into the final PDF document.
    [Show full text]